I suggest that those who are bored by this discussion do the obvious - simply don't read these pages.

The UK newspapers might well have seemingly abandoned their coverage, but it's not forgotten. Ignoring the person of the victims, the issue remains one of general importance, not least because of the soon to be released report of the Leveson Inquiry into the role and behaviour of the press in the UK is imminent. Privately, individual British press attitudes to the publication of these illegal photos is one of barely suppressed anger, which remains reluctantly suppressed to not further inflame a volatile, domestic situation.

At a more critical level, if we can believe statistics, they reveal that 1 in 4 women experience sexual violence at some point in their lives and that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys suffer sexual abuse during their childhood. It is estimated that there are between 6 - 13% rapists in the general community. That's a significant target market, given that it's claimed that 5% of the population are declared LGBT which enables corporations and business to speak openly about 'the pink pound/dollar', which they actively pursue. But we hear little about another, larger group of comsumers who are knowingly targeted - sexual abusers. A significant amount of products and advertisements are overtly targeting what is commercially, if somewhat furtively, referred to as 'the rape pound/dollar'.

A not too subtle example of this was Closure's commercial imperatives in publishing those photos, knowing that large numbers of people would buy a magazine that they usually wouldn't touch, for the pleasure of participating in the sexual humiliation of an attractive, famous woman. These readers were all aware that the photos were taken without Catherine's knowledge or consent, and that she did not want them published, but that only added to the titillation and fleeting sense of power they got from looking at them. That, in short, is the power of what commercial interests call the 'rape pound/dollar', in full flight.

It is dispiriting that so many cannot, or will not see, that they are being so blantantly manipulated. Instead, we read comments castigating the Duchess for her carelessness, that she should have known that society has unwritten rules about what part of the body it's acceptable to display! I've never heard of such 'rules' myself, particulary in relation to moments of intimacy between husband and wife, and generally, when hundreds of thousands of women find it perfectly unremarkable to sunbake topless on countless beaches. To claim that photos of the Duchess were not sexually exploitative or disciminatory because if they were, one would 'just know it', is tantamount, in my mind, to the apologists who say 'I am not racist, but.....'; 'I am not anti-gay, but......' Self-deluded at best, they are.

Taking photos of someone without their knowledge or permission on private property, 1.6 kms from a road, is the photographic equivalent of breaking and entering. Despite any other considerations, using the profound principle of freedom of the press (to inform, free from political intereference) to defend such criminal behavior and commercially-inspired invasions of privacy is inappropriate. The best testament to genuine freedom of the press would be to punish those who use the camera as a weapon to destroy, to inflict pain and harm —as well as those who profit from it

One of best posts I have ever seen on any forum! Thought provoking and very very true! Thanks for posting!

Yes it was, and it was a fantastic expression of how I feel about them as well.

Polly, I kind of want to offer to be your BFF and french braid your hair, that's how much I'm enjoying the points you made here.

I can't French braid, but I am willing to paint Polly's nails.
Fragile ego my black butt! His wife was violated for the world to see and people actually expect him to let it slide? Any husband would be pissed, I know a few who would have gotten their gun or opened a can of whoop a$$.

Here's an excellent article from the PressGazette. I encourage everyone to read it. Since the beginning of this scandal, we mostly heard the Anglo-Saxon point of view. It's interesting to hear another point of view and quite refreshing to read (it's neutral) after such a big deal was made.

Not sure it is an 'Anglo-Saxon' view as much as it is right-thinking people being outraged at this disgusting crime. A quote from this article by Laurent Joffrin pretty much sums up the mindset of these perverts “Taking a photograph from very far is not the same as running after someone. The comparison has no grounds for me.” Really Laurent? You see nothing wrong with taking a photograph from well over half a mile away with an 800 mm super-telephoto lens of a married couple on a private estate?
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have won in court, they have won in the court of public opinion and will eventually win in criminal court.
I hope the perverts at the Closer and also the pervert 'photographer' are jailed.
Nothing more than peeping-toms. Disgusting.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have won in court, they have won in the court of public opinion and will eventually win in criminal court.

What makes you think so? Maybe in the british tabloids, because they want to court the palace. Usually they are the first to publish reckless paparazzi photos, but understandably Kate in Britain is different. There are enough people in the rest of the world who either dont care because they dont see any difference to any other topless celebrity or dont get it, like what was she thinking in her position.

I am curious if Kate is going topless again on her next vacation, because after the lawsuit she will expect the paparazzi to drop their cameras out of fear of Prince Williams lawyers.

What makes you think so? Maybe in the british tabloids, because they want to court the palace. Usually they are the first to publish reckless paparazzi photos, but understandably Kate in Britain is different. There are enough people in the rest of the world who either dont care because they dont see any difference to any other topless celebrity or dont get it, like what was she thinking in her position.

Check out the numbers in the YouGov poll taken after the photos were published. I think the numbers are conclusive. 82 per cent agreeing it was wrong for the topless photographs to have been published and 72 per cent thinking the Royal Family was right to sue.

Here's an excellent article from the PressGazette. I encourage everyone to read it. Since the beginning of this scandal, we mostly heard the Anglo-Saxon point of view. It's interesting to hear another point of view and quite refreshing to read (it's neutral) after such a big deal was made.

The writer makes a few valid points - but they're all skewed and distorted by turning it into French press versus English press thing. Fact is, on a day to day basis the French press *is* more circumspect than the English press. It's also true that the right to privacy is ensconced in their law as well as their tradition in a more obvious way. But ... um ... so what?

Talking about such generalities and bolstering the argument with examples that are apples to oranges is just deflection. Fact is, a woman, her position and title are unimportant, had her photograph taken without her consent, from a place where privacy was reasonably expected. Further, she specifically denied permission for said photos to be published. What else matters except they *were* taken and *were* published? Everything else is commentary.

IDK, informally most adults I've spoken to have said 'what were they thinking". They think it's wrong that the pictures were published and are glad they won the law suit. Still, most say the Duke & Duchess were naive or arrogant in thinking they still had privacy. Most are baffled by the underwear coming off out of doors, especially for a member of the royal family.

IDK, informally most adults I've spoken to have said 'what were they thinking". They think it's wrong that the pictures were published and are glad they won the law suit. Still, most say the Duke & Duchess were naive or arrogant in thinking they still had privacy. Most are baffled by the underwear coming off out of doors, especially for a member of the royal family.

Respectfully, when people say 'out of doors' they make it seem like the couple were topless on a public beach with no expectation of privacy. Royal or not, William and Catherine are the victims here and to me all the rest is victim blaming.

Respectfully, when people say 'out of doors' they make it seem like the couple were topless on a public beach with no expectation of privacy. Royal or not, William and Catherine are the victims here and to me all the rest is victim blaming.

Also respectfully, most people I've spoken to don't go into their backyards and disrobe. Most are on Catherine & William's side in this but there's still a question mark as to the extent of the nudity. I've spoken to European who accept the topless as natural but are just a confused as the other part. I did speak with one lady who's boyfriends' family was Mediterreanean and the all got completely nude to sunbathe but other Europeans I've spoken don't.

Also respectfully, most people I've spoken to don't go into their backyards and disrobe. Most are on Catherine & William's side in this but there's still a question mark as to the extent of the nudity. I've spoken to European who accept the topless as natural but are just a confused as the other part. I did speak with one lady who's boyfriends' family was Mediterreanean and the all got completely nude to sunbathe but other Europeans I've spoken don't.

What does the 'extent' of the nudity have to do with anything?? The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are the victims of a disgusting crime. Full Stop!

I don't know anyone personally but I have certainly heard of people sunbathing topless in the privacy of their own home. Are doing it in the city on the balcony or cul de sac in the suburbs, I don't think so but if you have a nice fenced yard and are some ways from your neighbors. Yeah why wouldn't you? You are own your own property and have an expectation of privacy.

I also think that Europeans have a entirely different concept of the human body as it pertains to nudity and as natural as the day you were born, and as Americans (generally speaking) we don't. We (again generally speaking) tend to be a more prudish.

And again William and Catherine weren't on the balcony, or the beach in Cannes. They were in a private home off the beaten path, from the pics if you were on the street looking down at the house, you wouldn't see them. Unless of course, if you had a photograph lens and were told they were out sunbathing.

Now should have William and Catherine know better and should have not put themselves in such a situation. Yes, I think they should have. Unfortunatley for them, they thought they were so removed from the road that no one can see them.

Either way, I believed they learned their lesson. They will continue to have their public and private life and the private will become more closed off.

This situation reminds me a bit of learning their dogs name. At first I thought they were ridiculous for not sharing the name and making a mountain out of a molehill but now I finally get it. So much of their life if public, and the public has a right (or at least the British taxpayer does) to get their value for what they are paying (for travel expenses, security, etc.) and they might not have control on certain aspects of their life (unless they give it all up) but the name of their dog, is such a private thing that is just between them and their little family that they didn't want to share it.

Now that some of their private life has been exposed (excuse the pun) I can certainly see why they fight so hard to keep certain parts of it just between them.

This is a bit vitriolic. If someone can't make a point without it turning into accusations like this then there can be no discussion.

You were the one that made an issue of the 'extent of their nudity' as if that has anything to do with what happened. IMO, the extension of that kind of thinking (victim blaming) is that victims of certain crimes are 'asking for it'

You were the one that made an issue of the 'extent of their nudity' as if that has anything to do with what happened. IMO, the extension of that kind of thinking (victim blaming) is that victims of certain crimes are 'asking for it'

I did not say the victim of a crime deserve it. What you're saying is anyone disagrees with you is "victim blaming".